Laserfiche WebLink
Local Licensing Authority <br />Minutes <br />August 5, 2013 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Carlson inquired about estimates for the number of stores if a 500 ft. <br />separation between stores was required. There was no estimate available. <br /> <br />Machado expressed concern over no separation or a cap in place. He <br />suggested some separation be considered to preserve quality of life issues in <br />the City. If surrounding jurisdictions place a ban, he did not want to see <br />Louisville become a destination for retail marijuana businesses. <br /> <br />Carlson reminded the Authority there was a prohibition on consumption in <br />public which should control some of the impact on the community. He <br />suggested looking at the retail liquor store numbers in town and basing the <br />allowance on that. <br /> <br />Rommelfanger concluded the Authority was not in favor of caps, but would <br />suggest separation consideration to administer the number of <br />establishments. <br /> <br />Deputy City Manager Balser asked if this should be articulated as a <br />preservation of quality of life and character. The Authority members affirmed. <br /> <br />- Is there a need to list specifics in the prohibited acts section. Authority <br />Attorney Culley stated currently this section reflects the state legislation. <br />Staff suggested there be specific prohibited acts listed. <br /> <br />Carlson stated this would be similar to liquor where state statutes and <br />municipal code had similar violations listed. <br /> <br />Authority Attorney Culley stated this would also allow consideration by the <br />Local Licensing Authority for issuing show cause hearings. This would allow <br />increased ability for the police department to control local issues. <br /> <br />The Authority supported listing specifics in the prohibited acts section. <br /> <br />- Should a surety bond be required to guarantee sales tax payment. Authority <br />Attorney Culley stated this allowance for local jurisdictions to set this surety <br />bond is unlike liquor or medical marijuana establishments. Since it is not <br />required for any other retail establishment, staff felt it was not necessary for <br />retail marijuana. <br /> <br />Deputy City Manager Balser stated there was staff support for putting non- <br />payment of sales tax in the prohibited acts section but not for a surety bond <br />requirement. With the medical marijuana establishments, payment of sales <br />tax has not been an issue and they would be the first to be able to convert to <br />retail marijuana. <br />